/puballi-(ti)/, pu-pa-li-
‘to write, inscribe’
- Language
- Hieroglyphic Luwian
- Grammar
- verb
- ID
- 3809
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Hieroglyphic Luwian
/puballi-(ti)/, pu-pa-li-
‘to write, inscribe’1.1.1Transmission
This lexeme is attested once in an inscription from Karkamiš, dating to the mid-8th century BCE.
[AH.B.]
1.1.2Forms
| 3sg. pret. act. | /puballitta/ | pu-pa-li-tá | CEKKE inscr. 1, §3 (Karkamiš) |
1.1.3Graphic Features
1.1.3.1Phonological Interpretation
With only one attestation, the phonological interpretation of this lexeme is somewhat uncertain, given the vagaries inherent to the HLuw. writing system. However, the morphological structure believed to underlie the verb suggests that the given interpretation is the most probable option, cf. the discussion of the stem below. The verbal ending is read as unlenited here due to the use of 〈tá〉 over the 〈tà〉 sign; cf. Rieken 2010a:308f.
[AH.B.]
1.1.4Meaning
The verb constitutes the very final word of the shorter inscription on CEKKE obverse (the relevant clause is cited below) and describes the action that brought about the text on the stele, i.e. ‘to write’ or the more specialized ‘to inscribe’. Either meaning is possible in the context, and only further attestations can fully elucidate the matter, thus Rieken 2018a:342f. likewise refrains from assigning anything but the most basic level meaning ‘to write’ to /puballi-/ and /puballa-/.
Because of their close resemblance and clearly related meanings, the verbs /puballi-/ and /puballa-/ used to be conflated into one paradigm, see e.g. Payne 2010b:184f. and still Hutter-Braunsar 2019a:258. However, Rieken 2018a:342f. can show that there are actually two different stem formations underlying the attested forms, and the meanings are therefore not necessarily the same. At the same time, it should be mentioned that the context of attestation in CEKKE inscr. 1, §3 likely features a spelling mistake: za-ha-wa/i STELE-zi?! á-pa-sa pu-pa-li-tá, i.e. /za=ha=wa wani=sa abas puballitta/ ‘And he (scil. the latter) inscribed this stele’ with 〈STELE-zi〉 instead of the expected 〈STELE-za〉, since the signs 〈zi〉 (*376) and 〈za〉 (*377) are very closely related and only differ by the addition of two horizontal lines at the bottom. In a similar vein, it is therefore marginally possible that the choice of the sign 〈li〉 (*278) in the attested form of the verb in CEKKE is a mistake for 〈la〉 (*176). Both signs rely on a basic wing shape, differing only towards the broad end of the wing, but they usually face opposite directions and are hence perhaps less easily confused. Still, if the form should indeed have come about by mistake, the attestation would need to be attributed to the paradigm of /puballa-(ti)/ ‘to write’.
[AH.B.]
1.1.5Stem
The stem formation has been elucidated by Rieken 2018a:342f., and the present lexeme is a derivation in /-i-(ti)/ from an unattested stem */puballa(/i)-/; cf. also the discussion of the stem class in Sasseville 2021a:40.
[AH.B.]
For the lemma head, see HLuw. */pu-(di)/.